Spreading a New Philosophy - The Founding of Christianity

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Step One - Find the Most Receptive Audience

Telescoping many things I was going to say about Paul and his mission to the 'diaspora', it would not likely have been successful if he'd butted his head directly against the center of Judaic orthodoxy in Jerusalem. Instead he did an end run. He leveraged the all-important institution of communication and the meeting place: the synagogue. But he did it out in the hinterlands, on the periphery of central power and where the authorities were often less aware or less able to crush or suppress him. The key was not to swing for the fences right off, not to try to conquer the biggest, juiciest targets or the biggest center first --- but just to "plant a seed" and water it a little bit where there was some receptivity [you can see him doing all this, whether deliberately or by dumb luck, if you read the fifteen points I posted from the Davies book near the start of this thread.]

He probably didn't know at first that it would not be the Jews who were the most eager converts but the 'hangers on' standing in the back of the synagogues: the Gentiles. The vast majority of the empire who were not jewish. They liked the moral certainty of Judaism but not the nationalism or the rigid Judaic law: Having someone hack at your balls is probably a deal-breaker for a lot of people. :-)

In marketing books, they often talk about "product positioning" as your very first step. If you are small, unknown, don't have credibility, and don't have the resources of a giant corporation in terms of manpower or money you need to select a subset of the largest market, a "niche". And it needs to be the -right- niche, the one where your product is attractive and there is no competition or you can successfully compete with them.

If you are small and unknown and resource-poor (can't afford nationwide ads on Super Bowl Sunday or giant display ads every weekend in the metropolitan paper or mass mailings) and you don't start out by being selective, by i) aiming at a niche and ii) trying to do everything or sell everything to the right niche, you are a fool!

You simply won't be able to win against entrenched competition. Even with the best product in the world no one will hear of you in the din of competing voices.

"Well, okay Phil, this historical excursion back 2000 years into the struggles of a sect and into today's marketing of commercial products is all very nice. But what the hell does this esoterica have to do with marketing Objectivism and convincing more people of its morality, practicality, desirability?

"You know we all luv ya here, Phil -- but aren't you just off on one of your snipe-hunts or one of your weird LSD-induced academic rants??? "

[Philip Coates]

" What the hell does your nonsense about sucess for corporations and religions have to do with marketing Objectivism?"

It has everything to do with it.

Very general marketing principles can sometimes apply not just to physical products but to intellectual ones. Why? Because they are based on human nature.

In the case of marketing the kind of business products and services discussed in a marketing course or book, the "product positioning" step has to do with selecting a product (you probably won't succeed if you are selling soap since good products are already available, but I worked for a small pharmaceutical company that got its first big success sellling polytar soaps with medicinal and dermatological properties). And with figuring out who the prospects are and how you can reach them within the limits of your advertising budget and perhaps word-of-mouth.

It's all a numbers game. You don't have to 'sell' to everyone, but the 'niche' of people who have certain skin problems or skin conditions will have a far higher percentage who will be receptive to a better product along those lines than the usual stuff sold by Palmolive or Ivory.

In the case of marketing a complex new package of ideas like Objectivism, (and one which requires some explaining) you skip the 'selection of a product' step since you already -have- the well-developed set of ideas which has a definite nature. Your task is to find your audience, at least your initial one which will firmly establish a starting 'market'. It may sound like this is simpler than marketing a tangible product or service like soap or pharmaceuticals or tires or car insurance, but it's not. The first step is done, but the second step is much harder.

Marketers can easily identify who would be likely be the customers for a new car, especially once the subcategory - sports car, family van, etc. - has been identified. But this task is far harder for Objectivism. It is a general philosophy. It could appeal to a high school student, an engineer, a southerner, both sexes, different levels of education, different levels of prosperity, etc.

So should we give up on finding a 'niche'? After all Rand's books appeal across the country to all sorts of people who buy them in bookstores? Wouldn't it be a mistake to narrow our focus? [When I say -our- I'm speaking of institutions like ARI or TAS with financial resources, but I'm also speaking of individuals deciding where to post a comment, write a letter, try to persuade one on one or in groups.]

[Philip Coates]

So, next obvious set of questions:

1. Exactly how do "we" [or others] transfer or apply these 'positioning' and 'niche' ideas to a non-physical product, a non-'service' product?

2. On the one hand, should we even try?

3. On the other hand, aren't the 'experts' already doing all this? Aren't they already leveraging, targeting, appealing to different groups? For example, ARI's clever programs aimed at students all across America?

[john42t]

No, it it is differentiaton and precision, acknowledging the fact that several philosophies exist which one cannot not simply lump together.

Continued here.

[Ellen Stuttle]

And this is the kind of subject that Ellen Stuttle finds worth posting on again, after finding almost nothing else to post on on this list for the last six months.

Typical presuming, against doing which you admonish others.

In point of fact, for many months I've been too busy to notice what was happening on OL -- or on any other discussion list, except, sporadically in July and August, for a particular thread on ARCHN where I made some posts about *The Logical Leap* and then about Popper. It isn't that I "[found] almost nothing else to post on [here]." It's that I wasn't looking. I actually find the substantive parts of this thread interesting, but I still haven't time for active participation on the subject.

--

Ellen:   you are/were taking me too literally.    To make a good story, every Valjean deserves a Javert, and vice versa.   But, alas, perhaps I am taking you too literally...

I wasn't sure how you meant the comment. I would have used a smiley face, but I don't know how to use one with the revamped software. And I likely wouldn't have said anything about your post, even though the comparison gave me a sickish feeling, if Jonathan hadn't proceeded to make the comment which appeared to indicate that I'd documented Phil's hypocrisy. Since I thought I should correct that, I responded to your post too while I was blipping in.

As for Phil's use of the "C" word, I am going to go ahead and pull a little rank here: having defended hundreds of employment claims on behalf of employers throughout the country, I can assure you that the C-word is only one half of a notch worse than the N-word, according to judges and juries (and my wife...).

Phil should appreciate your generosity on this point, but that generosity is not warranted--not on this issue, at least.

I'm serious that I wasn't aware "the 'C' word" has as bad a cachet as you report. But even if I had been aware, what was to say -- except "Q.E.D.," which I thought was too obvious to need saying?

Ellen

[Selene]

Looks like the "spread of Christianity" had nothing to do with marketing!

The Explosion of Early Christianity, Explained

by Luke Muehlhauser on November 22, 2010 in General Atheism

Redated from Feb. 28, 2009

Do we need mass conversions to explain rapid growth?

In just 300 years, Christianity grew from a small Jewish sect in Galilee to become the dominant religion of the Roman Empire. How can we explain this?

A popular explanation is mass conversion. Acts 2:41 reports that Peter converted 3,000 people with a single sermon. Early church historian Eusebius wrote that the apostles “went on to other countries and nations with the grace and cooperation of God, for a great many wonderful works were done through them, by the power of the divine Spirit, so that at first hearing, whole multitudes of men eagerly embraced the religion of the Creator of the universe.”¹

Modern thinkers tended to agree. Yale historian Ramsey MacMullen wrote that Christianity grew so quickly that it must have had “successes en masse.”²

Christians explain these mass conversions with supernatural miracles; proof that Christianity is true! Even atheists think the early Christians must have been such good preachers they converted whole audiences. Whatever the explanation for mass conversions, it seems that Christianity could not have grown so fast without them.

At least, that’s what we thought until 1996, when somebody actually bothered to do the math. That man was Rodney Stark, sociologist of religion.

The math is pretty simple. Let’s do it ourselves. We need two numbers: a early starting count of Christians and a count around 300 C.E. Here’s Rodney Stark writing about the starting number:

For a

starting

number, Acts 1:14-15 suggests that several months after the Crucifixion there were 120 Christians. Later, in Acts 4:4, a total of 5,000 believers is claimed. And, according to Acts 21:20, by the sixth decade of the first century there were “many thousands of Jews” in Jerusalem who now believed. These are not statistics. Had there been that many converts in Jerusalem, it would have been the first Christian city, since there probably were no more than twenty thousand inhabitants at this time… As Hans Conzelmann noted, these numbers are only “meant to render impressive the marvel that here the Lord himself is at work” [1973:63]. Indeed, as Robert M. Grant pointed out, “one must always remember that figures in antiquity… were part of rhetorical exercises” [1977:7-8] and were not really meant to be taken literally. Nor is this limited to antiquity. In 1984 a Toronto magazine claimed that there were 10,000 Hare Krishna members in that city. But when [researchers] checked on the matter, they found that the correct total was 80.

3

So let’s say there were only 1,000 Christians by the year 40, a full decade after Jesus’ death.

As for the ending number, at 300 C.E., historians have made many estimates, usually around 5-8 million.⁴

So, Christianity may have grown from about 1,000 believers in 40 C.E. to about 5-8 million in 300 C.E. – just 260 years. That would require a growth rate of 40% per decade, as shown by this table:

Year Number of Christians, given 40% growth per decade

40 1,000 50 1,400 60 1,960 70 2,744 80 3,842 90 5,378 100 7,530 150 40,496 200 217,795 250 1,171,356 300 6,299,832 350 33,882,008

That really is tremendous growth. Now we can ask, does this kind of growth require mass conversions?

As it turns out, this matches almost exactly the growth rate of the Mormon church over the past century. Mormonism has grown at 43% per decade, and without mass conversions.⁵

Exponential growth explains the explosion of Christianity perfectly. In fact, it also explains why Christianity seemed insignificant until about 300, when it suddenly became a huge force in the Roman Empire.⁶ The growth rate remained the same, but in terms of absolute numbers, Christianity would indeed explode around that time – from 6 million to 33 million adherents – if it tracked with the growth rate of Mormonism.

So, the early growth of the Christian church is impressive, but no more impressive than the growth of Mormonism.

And in fact, Christianity had several advantages that Mormonism never had.

For example, Christianity was the only missionary religion in the Roman Empire. Jews and pagans did not try to convert each other. Christianity had that field all to itself. Contrast that with the world faced by Mormonism, in which dozens of missionary religions compete with Mormonism for new adherents.

Second, Christianity was an exclusivist religion. If an ancient Roman converted from one brand of paganism to another, he was free to keep his old gods. One brand of paganism gained an adherent, and another did not lose one. But Christianity was intolerant of other beliefs. If someone converted to Christianity, then Christianity gained an adherent and paganism lost one. This was also true of Judaism, but Jews did not evangelize. Mormonism is also an exclusivist religion, but it is competing mostly with other exclusivist religions (Christianity and Islam).

Third, Christianity offered equal status to women, who had very low status in Judaism and in Roman society. Instead, Mormonism actually offers women lower status than in the society at large – hardly an attractive feature to half of all potential converts to Mormonism.

Fourth, we have no mention of primary evidence relating to Jesus that ancient people could use to defend or discredit Christianity. In contrast, primary evidence that discredits the bogus career of Joseph Smith is easily available, because he lived in the modern era.

Fifth, Christianity competed only with Judaism – which had no missionaries – as a text-driven religion. Texts are a powerful way to spread, unify, and preserve religious movements, and the pagan world had few of any importance.⁷ In contrast, Mormonism had to compete with dozens of other text-driven religions during its infancy, most notably orthodox Christianity and Islam.

Sixth, after Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, whole villages thought it best to “convert” to Christianity,⁸ and entire cities of barbarians “converted” with their leader when their settlement was subsumed in the Roman Empire.⁹ Mormonism has never benefited from such state support.

Even with all these disadvantages compared to early Christianity, Mormonism seems to have slightly outpaced the growth of the early Christian church.

Clearly, we have no need of mass conversions or magical explanations. The early growth of Christianity is, actually, much less impressive than the growth of Mormonism in the 20th century, which required neither mass conversions nor miracles.

The explosion of atheism

There is another problem for Christians who want to say that the explosive growth of early Christianity must be due to God. Compared to Christianity, atheism grew even faster during the 20th century. According to the World Christian Encyclopedia (the most respected source for religious demographics):

The number of nonreligionists… throughout the 20th century has skyrocketed from 3.2 million in 1900… to 918 million in AD 2000… From a miniscule presence in 1900, a mere 0.2% of the globe, [atheism and agnosticism] are today expanding at the extraordinary rate of 8.5 million new converts each year, and are likely to reach one billion adherents soon. A large percentage of their members are the children, grandchildren or the great-great-grandchildren of persons who in their lifetimes were practicing Christians.

At the early Christian rate of 40% per decade and 3.2 million in 1900, non-believers would have only numbered 74 million in 2000, not 918 million. The growth rate of non-belief in the 20th century was 76% per decade.

The percentage-of-world-population gain for atheism was even greater. Christianity claimed about a third of world population in 1900, and claims the same today. Hindus stayed at 1/7th of the world total throughout the century. Buddhism and paganism have declined. Islam went from 1/8th to 1/5th – not through freedom or education but through unprotected sex. In contrast, non-belief during the 20th century skyrocketed from 0.2% to 15.2%! Clearly, the gods are not winning.

Of course, atheism is not a religion, so the comparison is not fair. But what are Christians supposed to make of this? Did Satan strike a big blow to Yahweh, who is now losing the battle? Did a god who likes atheists take over? Or is our planet – which became literate and educated as never before in the 20th century – finally growing up?

I found this article quite enlightening.

Adam

[john42t]

Looks like the "spread of Christianity" had nothing to do with marketing!

The Explosion of Early Christianity, Explained

Very interesting article.

Also that it was a feminist ideology back then is an interesting statement, I haven't heard that yet.

[Selene]

Looks like the "spread of Christianity" had nothing to do with marketing!

The Explosion of Early Christianity, Explained

Very interesting article.

Also that it was a feminist ideology back then is an interesting statement, I haven't heard that yet.

John:

Yes, extremely interesting. I never even thought of approaching this topic from a behavioralist paradigm of pure numbers.

Additionally, I highlighted the paragraph in red concerning women. I also did not consider that as an attracting mechanism because of how the Roman Catholic church evolved witn a male priesthood.

However, I can see how at that time, it was an extremely attractive competitor to the other religion's female status.

Nice pick up.

Adam

[9thdoctor]

Additionally, I highlighted the paragraph in red concerning women. I also did not consider that as an attracting mechanism because of how the Roman Catholic church evolved witn a male priesthood.

However, I can see how at that time, it was an extremely attractive competitor to the other religions female status.

An earlier Roman emperor tried to impose a "new" religion in the 3rd century, Sol Invictus. It was a male only religion though, as was Mithraism. Good for a warrior cult, something for the troops to do for bonding among themselves, but mothers weren't going to be teaching their toddlers to believe in it.

There's plenty of New Testament material that suggests an important place for women in early Christianity, then there's the misogynistic Pauline material, which nowadays scholars try to explain away as being later interpolations. When I went to Catholic masses there definitely were women speaking in church (doing readings, singing), and they didn't even have their heads covered!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It is satisfying to me when everyone pitches in...

William.

I haven't pitched in until this very post.

Michael

[PDS]

Just dropping in to say I love this thread. It has it all --stars, star turns, learning leavened with wit, a spine with digressions, argument, discussion and squabbles, a few slurs -- and the occasional tang of invective. Religious poetry, drama and ethics, sustained inquiry, scrutiny and revision. We examine early Christian saints, the religious economy they were born into and the Walmart-like growth of their subsequent operation. We have Bible verses, moral admonishment and homework questions. We even have Objectivish drollery on the word cunt.

It is satisfying to me when everyone pitches in and the outline of the entire elephant eventually becomes quite distinct ... so I hope to hear from Steve and the other bright sparks, from the rest of the second tier, and then finally sum up proceedings with a dash of Barbara on the rocks . . . dare we invoke the name of J Neil Schulman,. so he may help us envision places we may not reach ourselves?

Phil, you have helped knit together the community, somehow. There is no cheque in the mail, no Paypal for you, so this time you will have to take payment in pleasure.

I offer you a religion, a religion called Objectivism, with a suggested all-purpose liturgy for all maner of Objectivist meetings, celebrations, memorials and endeavors, from arrivals through unions to departures. This is off the top of my head, having no idea of a liturgy more awful or more stirring.

Weigh in, Phil, summarize the thesis, squeeze the wine from your press, deliver us a hopeful liturgy for the church founded this day in Greater Sun Center.

Objectivists believe in Objectivism. It is a Total System. It can help you Answer All Questions. It can help you live Smart. It can help you deal with every single one of Life's Blows, but it promises you nothing, nothing at all, no love, no blessing, no mercies and no special exceptions. Objectivism offers you nothing but the fruit of the free human mind.

Objectivism offers you no gods, no saints, no churches, no holy book, no seers. It offers nothing but a mind, your own mind, your mind turned to reality to answer the first and final questions. Objectivism gives no afterlife, no heavenly blessings, nothing from a spirit world beyond.

Individual minds can solve real problems. Individual minds working in concert can solve real problems. Problems deserve sane, wise and rational solutions derived from reality.

Objectivism is the friend of every scientist, of every seeker, of every observer, for it wields the self-same tools humanity has accumulated to best test and master reality.

Objectivism reflects reality, the reality of every individual intelligence of the world. It says: seek the best and only the best, for each individual human being. It witnesses the best of humanity where it resides, in the actions and in the minds of each individual in the world, in the universe, in its entirety.

Objectivism lives and speaks both loud and quiet, in each individual's best actions, in each sober judgement and act of mercy, in each individual soul. It is wages for weary minds, insight for the puzzled, respite, rejuvenation and recompense for those in struggle. It is Dignity, Honour, Justice and Self-Respect.

Let us now take a moment to reflect in awe at the Human, at the unique power of human intelligence in the universe. Let us move forward proudly in time, in individual toil and individual leisure. Let us savour this life. Let us each strive to live the best life that we may, in each moment of each tomorrow, in each moment of the life we have woken to, in fullest understanding possible. For a moment, together bound by the glory of this Reality, let us bless the human who lives inside each one of us, let us honour the human and let us continue in this sense of spirit until we meet again.

WSS:

Fabulous stuff. Given your predilection for the wry smile in your writings, I am ashamed to admit I am not sure which portions are meant to be ironic--but it matters not.

We all speak of Objectivism around here--glibly, forcefully and mostly in the abstract.

A useful reality check, I recently discovered quite by accident, is to go back and watch Rand's You Tube interviews with Donohue. Not sure why, but the sweet (and somewhat scared) person (old lady?) giving the interview puts a large dose of flesh and bones on Objectivism. She was just a person, after all. The interviews put me in a melancholy mood, and I'm not sure why.

[william.scherk]

Let us now take a moment to reflect in awe at the Human, at the unique power of human intelligence in the universe. Let us move forward proudly in time, in individual toil and individual leisure. Let us savour this life. Let us each strive to live the best life that we may, in each moment of each tomorrow, in each moment of the life we have woken to, in fullest understanding possible. For a moment, together bound by the glory of this Reality, let us bless the human who lives inside each one of us, let us honour the human and let us continue in this sense of spirit until we meet again.

WSS:

Fabulous stuff. Given your predilection for the wry smile in your writings, I am ashamed to admit I am not sure which portions are meant to be ironic--but it matters not.

Thanks -- in gratitude for your praise and in recompense for your admission, I'll tell you that the first part was intended to throb with irony while offering rationally-derived information, observation, so you can make of that part what you will: I hoped to be true to facts on display so far in this thread, and I do very much want to get more of the elephant sketched by more OL minds ... the second part was also sincerely meant, and meant to be smirk-free -- if there could be a liturgy, if the notion of a rational yet awful document of Objective-ish/ist central 'gospel', an all-occasion invocation of 'faith' -- via precepts, essentials, emotionally satisfying expressions of the core values and achievements of an 'objective' humanity alone in the universe, then why not work one up?

I really think it could be instructive and rewarding to work something up -- an ecumenical document that is at least unoffensively 'uplifting' and 'uniting' in conviction and purpose. Perhaps someone else but me might attempt to rewrite my doggerel or offer another liturgical specimen for editing. I do not cajole or presume that anyone can take Objectivist philosophy and turn it into something fit for a cathedral of reason, but hey ... I will offer a second-draft revision below and on my OL blog.

Since I have haven't really hammered my earlier few points in this thread, I should reiterate. Yes to inquiry into the early Christians and the growth and the lessons for Objectivism. Examine this, it is fascinating and instructive in itself, when the examination is done most objectively. Yes also to inquiry on 'marketing' (persasion/propaganda/coercion/'conversions') techniques, lessons, tips, insights from Christian expansion.

But, never forget the context of the times and the 'product' of Salvation in Christ. The Messiah of Jewish tradition, later the Madhi of Islamic tradition, the living spirit of God Almighty and his lessons for the world. Don't fail to consider the best histories from many perspectives, the milieu of ferment and deep cultural soil in which Jesus-religion grew. Never forget the Christ message, it is very very compelling still to many.

The second point, then, is that Phil needs to engage deeply and thoughtfully with the tangible points made by other discussants, not leave questions unanswered.

We all speak of Objectivism around here--glibly, forcefully and mostly in the abstract.

A useful reality check, I recently discovered quite by accident, is to go back and watch Rand's You Tube interviews with Donohue. Not sure why, but the sweet (and somewhat scared) person (old lady?) giving the interview puts a large dose of flesh and bones on Objectivism. She was just a person, after all. The interviews put me in a melancholy mood, and I'm not sure why.

Yes, a poignancy in the latter interview was apparent to me. I chose to excise the discursions on disagreement. I don't think the puzzle she raised has ever been successfully solved within Objectivism.

It is satisfying to me when everyone pitches in...

I haven't pitched in until this very post.

Forgive me for not mentioning you by name. It would of course be great to have you pitch in ... sketching the elephant I begin to perceive!

. . . Well, you know I'm just trying to keep you entertained, you c**t

Cut the cant, you reprobate, and address my doggerel, or I will begin to be cuntish to you. And we do not want that, even though Ms All Aquibble would scarcely notice, the tw*t.

Hi, Bill, welcome back, disrespect and all.

--Brant

at least it's highly entertaining

Oof, the double-edged compliment. Thanks, Brant, but I fail utterly if I am only entertaining. I fail if I seem disrespectful, insincere or merely mocking.

I do believe in reason. I do strive for and seek objectivity. I could happily spout that objective-ish doggerel with conviction, after a few revisions.

Edited December 6, 2011 by william.scherk

[Philip Coates]

> Phil needs to engage deeply and thoughtfully with the tangible points made by other discussants, not leave questions unanswered.

William, I must have made 40? 70? posts on this thread.

What's -really- striking is how few posts are engaging deeply and thoughtfully with the points **I** have made...or how often my questions are left unanswered. (I even number them at the end of some posts or separate them out and specifically request a response.)

For my part, didn't you notice that I've been "engaging deeply and thoughtfully" with points of others repeatedly on this thread. Just off the top of my head, over the last nearly a month, I've responded to issues raised by ND, GHS, Daunce, Roger Bissell, john42t, etc. In fact, I've engaged with most of these posters -multiple- times on this thread. ( I can't necessarily answer every objection or question because I don't have unlimited time, so I try to judge which ones can't go unresponded to. Sometimes I let something percolate and a later post, hopefully, implicitly answers an issue that was raised. )

Is there a particularly relevant and important question I didn't respond to which you think I should? -- If so, could you post a brief summary of the thrust of it and hopefully the post number?

[anthony]

The video has left me rather melancholy (tx PDS ) as well.

That ambush job on her by Donohue and the snide little audience member was shameful. Though clearly rattled at first, AR came out fighting - but she lacked the easy put-down of say, Christopher Hitchens.

In a full debate, the snide number would have had her objections demolished, I fancy.

I believe there was some hopeful innocence in Ayn Rand, in that she was always seeking for her "honorable adversary",one whom she could engage with honestly.

(Leave aside for now, the several fine philosophers she alienated - but they are relevant.)

When absolute uncompromise, brilliant insight, a certain naivete, and a barely restrained hopefulness for mankind - meet the reality of petty minds, something has to give.

William's "poignancy" perhaps says it all for me.

[william.scherk]

In a further flight of fancy, I see in my mind's eye some compelling symbols that can be utilized by objective-ish/ist folks. The word, the cognates already ring well and strong in connotation across all the areas of human inquiry: objective history, objective news, objective statistics, objective science, objective justice, objective opinion, objective virtues, objective values, objective objective yadda yadda; take back the O from the partisans of the criminal kinglet in DC and the grotesque media maven in Chi-town.

O -- unadorned. The badge of objectivity, reason and sober judgement. A round window in the meeting room, at the peak of the roof, as a skylight symbol to the central sober room of greatest assembly in the precincts. Not a church, but a place for solemn assemblies and rational voices, for deliberations and summations, for great passings and great joys and great sorrows. A simple room. A simple window on reality, a symbolic eye turned upward from the room, a symbolic searchlight for the cosmos ...

Next, the word objective. Its derivative, objectivity can be captialized and its cousinly verb Object can also be fielded. For what does an objective-ish/ist person object to?

How about The Ten Objections?

Big objections to things that all human have either been subject to or that have yet to be overthrown on earth. I can only start with a couple of humanistic nostrums as placeholders for the symbolic list of objections nailed to the door:

Murder, Slavery, Force ...

Do you Object to Slavery?

Do you Object to Compulsion?

How about Sanctuary? A refuge for free thought and conscientious objectors, a symbol vale of protection for citizens at great risk to the their liberty, a small realm of symbolic asylum, a Gulch.

Study? How about a great library and archive of liberty, a site just modestly large enough for international convocations and assemblies and forums for the most free, liberal and liberated minds on offer? How about small, focused 'missions' of inquiry, objective investigation...

And what of humankind's Objective(s)? Is there a great writer and communicator here who can nail his list to the wall alongside the Objections?

Do I have to curse and harry that tw*t Philip Coates that he may take up my challenges? I say seize the brilliance of this thread and forge a conclusive, integrated alloy, an evocation of Objective-ish/ist/ism fundaments.

Shake the heavens with your words, magis, ministers, sages ... The time has come to put all the lessons in a beautiful basket.

Edited December 7, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

But, never forget the context of the times and the 'product' of Salvation in Christ. The Messiah of Jewish tradition, later the Madhi of Islamic tradition, the living spirit of God Almighty and his lessons for the world. Don't fail to consider the best histories from many perspectives, the milieu of ferment and deep cultural soil in which Jesus-religion grew. Never forget the Christ message, it is very very compelling still to many.

The second point, then, is that Phil needs to engage deeply and thoughtfully with the tangible points made by other discussants, not leave questions unanswered.

William, I must have made 40? 70? posts on this thread.

What's -really- striking is how few posts are engaging deeply and thoughtfully with the points **I** have made...or how often my questions are left unanswered. (I even number them at the end of some posts or separate them out and specifically request a response.)

For my part, didn't you notice that I've been "engaging deeply and thoughtfully" with points of others repeatedly on this thread. Just off the top of my head, over the last nearly a month, I've responded to issues raised by ND, GHS, Daunce, Roger Bissell, john42t, etc. In fact, I've engaged with most of these posters -multiple- times on this thread. ( I can't necessarily answer every objection or question because I don't have unlimited time, so I try to judge which ones can't go unresponded to. Sometimes I let something percolate and a later post, hopefully, implicitly answers an issue that was raised. )

Is there a particularly relevant and important question I didn't respond to which you think I should? -- If so, could you post a brief summary of the thrust of it and hopefully the post number?

Yes and no.

Yes I could post a summary. No, no, a thousand times no to giving you the post number. Fuck you on the post number, because if you click the c*ntish hyperlink signified by this little image () in the quote above named Phil and the Strikeout Pen anyone with a finger or thumb can go to your original words, yet when you excerpt me above there is no linked quote, just a spodge of my words and your flip, evasive answer to my essay in liturgy. You bastard child of Hun interlopers! You excrescence of the dung beetle's parasitical worm infection! I curse you and your donkey mother!

Just dropping in to say I love this thread. It has it all --stars, star turns, learning leavened with wit, a spine with digressions, argument, discussion and squabbles, a few slurs -- and the occasional tang of invective. Religious poetry, drama and ethics, sustained inquiry, scrutiny and revision. We examine early Christian saints, the religious economy they were born into and the Walmart-like growth of their subsequent operation. We have Bible verses, moral admonishment and homework questions. We even have Objectivish drollery on the word cunt.

. . . Well, you know I'm just trying to keep you entertained, you c**t.

.... (oh the horror...!) .... #$%&*((^%@@!

I like that you gave attention to ND, GHS, Daunce, Roger Bissell ... so now give attention to me, if you please. I would direct you to my notion of liturgy. I think it might be somewhere in the thread.

Click reply to it and do something with me. Quote me using the reply function. Be brave. Use the tools.

Otherwise, Thor and the assorted gods of the ages will begin operations against you here. Please comment if you can, on the ideas such as 'Objective-ity ism ish ists is the friend of all scientists, etcetera ... that is the meat of my synthetic credo. I do wonder what you think of that. In a conversation I would probe you, engage you, but here I can only hope and wait ... hope against hope that you will use the Coates Strikeout for objective ends.

[Philip Coates]

> I would direct you to my notion of liturgy. I think it might be somewhere in the thread.

Williiam, I'm not sure what you're talking about or what your point was.

[Brant Gaede]

(just primin' the pump)

--Bant

[Ellen Stuttle]

> I would direct you to my notion of liturgy. I think it might be somewhere in the thread.

Williiam, I'm not sure what you're talking about or what your point was.

I'm astonished. Here I thought that for once someone would have succeeded at getting through to Phil that his out-of-context snippet quoting and lack of engagement with the substance of what respondents have said just won't do if he genuinely wants a discussion. Can Phil really be that wrapped in an impervious cocoon of obliviousness, or is he putting it on?

Ellen

[Philip Coates]

Are you really that dumb?

Do you not know what an ellipsis is and why it's better than quoting everything said from some of these rambling posters, rather than the specific points you consider relevant or want to respond to?

.

.

.

PS, Are you really so petty and small that the -only thing- that you can find worth posting on in a long and interesting thread is personal attack?

[Ellen Stuttle]

Do you not know what an ellipsis is and why it's better than quoting everything said from some of these rambling posters, rather than the specific points you consider relevant or want to respond to?

The options aren't limited to quoting *everything* from a post and quoting a sufficient portion fairly to present the context of the original remarks. William illustrated this well by *showing* how much of the context relevant to *his point* you had left out with your haphazard elliding. You don't engage with your respondent when you do that, Phil.

Ellen

[Philip Coates]

Continuing from where posts 326, 327, 328 left off:

" Marketing books..often talk about "product positioning" as your very first step...If you are small, unknown, don't have credibility, and don't have [great] resources..of manpower or money you need to select a subset of the largest market, a "niche". And it needs to be the -right- niche, the one where your product is attractive and there is no competition or you can successfully compete with them....Marketers can easily identify who would be likely be the customers for a new car, especially once the subcategory - sports car, family van, etc. - has been identified. But this task is far harder for Objectivism. [so:] 1. Exactly how do "we" [or others] transfer or apply these 'positioning' and 'niche' ideas to a non-physical product, a non-'service' product? // 2. On the one hand, should we even try? // 3. On the other hand, aren't the 'experts' already doing all this? Aren't they already leveraging, targeting, appealing to different groups? For example, ARI's clever programs aimed at students all across America? "

{aside: the above is a very good example of "ellipsis" -> instead of requiring people to go back and reread and try to retain the entirety of three long posts, I condensed some key points into a paragraph.}

My preliminary answers:

1. Since resources are limited and you can't reach everyone and not everyone would be interested, you try to identify subcategories of people who might be interested in a philosophy of reason. Here are some: (i) the young and students, (ii) those who are victims of the current system, (iii) those trained in subjects which develop logic and evidence-based thinking, (iv) those whose life or professional discipline requires focused effort and strength of character to be successful. [i'm also going to add (v) women, especially in places where they are particularly oppressed, but that would require a long discussion.] Those niches are very broad; there is not enough money or persuasive intellectuals to fully "hit" even those target audiences. Can we narrow it further to find an even greater concentration of "high value targets"?

NIches whose members are already "halfway there" or in partial agreement or sympathy are a major target: The "Tea Party" is a good example of a niche which -has- begun to be reached by Rand's politics and economics and heroic sense of life, although not necessarily by Objectivism as a philosophical system....and there is a danger in becoming too politically-focused and too identified with the right.

2. Are ARI and TAS and CATO and Reason and activists/book writers/protesters wasting their time trying to spread ideas? Should Objectivists (or libertarians) even try? Is there any point? Won't people who are interested naturally come to Objectivism (or libertarianism) and others couldn't be persuaded anyway? Not really: The whole discipline of marketing, the long history of business and of entrepreneurship shows that people don't 'naturally' discover your product or service until it's existence is known and until its benefits are (often repeatedly) explained to them in keep it simple terms they can understand or in ways they can visualize.

3. The answer to question 3 is really embedded in threads like this. Whenever I or someone else points out a new idea or a way of improvement, it's something the experts haven't yet done fully or could improve on. (Also, the people at ARI, TAS, etc. are not necessarily 'experts' at every relevant skill in every case.) The most successful attempts at targeting a niche are probably ARI's battery of programs aimed at high school and college students: books for teachers, essay contests, getting professors exposed to Oism, getting Oist professors on campuses, interns, ARI's own OAC school. The problem is that since it is so broad or diffuse -- millions of students, there is little ability at follow-up. After initial teenage enthusiasm with Rand, students are barraged with counter arguments, professors tell them it's not practical, the economy would collapse. And so on.

So, are there ways to find "sub-niches" small enough, yet potent and promising enough? Where you can plant seeds that will grow into gigantic self-sustaining healthy oak trees? Where you can actually nurture and follow-up and answer questions and "bring them along"? And how do you do that? Build and nurture communities so that they steadily expand? The way Paul tried to do with his recurrent visits and deputies and epistles to the communities he had founded.

This last paragraph contains the 64 trillion dollar questions. Everything depends on it.

(Good answers do exist. . . And again, this is where you study history and movements and marketing and business.)

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil added something to his post #345 after I'd responded to it:

PS, Are you really so petty and small that the -only thing- that you can find worth posting on in a long and interesting thread is personal attack?

Phil, I told you long ago that I won't respond substantively to your posts until and unless you learn to use the little link feature -- the feature described clearly, and for the umpteenth time (I've described it to you several times myself, as have others), in William's post #341. When you don't use that link function, then, even if you provide the unlinked post number, people have to hunt and peck to find the material you've likely misrepresented with your elliding ("likely" because so often you do misrepresent). I for one am not willing to do the hunting and pecking.

As to "personal attack," come off it. No one engages in that more than you do. Nor was my purpose "personal attack" but instead a kind of last ditch effort to maybe motivate you to *attend* to the message about your response method.

Ellen

[Philip Coates]

Subject: attack dog small-mindedness continued

> how much of the context relevant to *his point* you had left out

> You don't engage

Still waiting for Ellen to engage with the many substantive points I've made on this thread -- instead of nitpicking to death how many posts I've responded to or if I answered every last point.

She could start with the post I just made. There are dozens of ideas in it. Engagement could take the form of agreement and elaboration and integration, of disagreement and counter-argument, of questions about the points.

Subject: The Illogical - and Unreasonable - Ms. Ellen

... Ah! We cross-posted and I just noticed her "reason" for not engaging. She said I might be misrepresenting when I use ellipsis. Logical question: How would that apply to the vast majority of my posts where I'm making my own points not responding to or quoting other people. Nothing to engage with? I never raise interesting ideas or start interesting threads?

Logical point 2: So that's reason enough for her -never- to engage with my posts. Not once? Even indirectly? But she thinks I should engage with -other people's'- posts . . . and is not fair enough to notice that I've engaged with many other people's posts on this thread!

[Philip Coates]

1. > I won't respond substantively to your posts

First, you could respond to other posts by other people. There have been lots of them on this thread. Second, your excuse for not responding is itself petty and silly: If you only wanted to "perfect posters", there is almost no one you could engage with. A wise person is able to see if someone raises thought-provoking or interesting ideas. She doesn't quibble so much with the form.

Thirdly, you could respond to William, couldn't you? You seem to think his point has not been dealt with, right?

2. > "personal attack"...No one engages in that more than you do

That is outright bullshit, if you've been reading this forum regularly. What I do is -respond heatedly- to personal attacks -in kind-. If someone calls me a hypocrite, I will call them a lowlife or scum or a liar. You do understand the difference between the appropriate of initiating and responding, don't you?

Finally, you are a hypocrite for criticizing me, but not criticizing all of the dozens or hundreds of posts personally attacking me. Not George, not ND, not Jonathan - just to name three long-standing sources you couldn't possibly have missed. Cite for me the post where you say to at least one of them that they shouldn't be calling me names.